- Dillo-dev - lists.mailman3.com

release preparations (was Re: [Dillo-dev] Benchmark for web page rendering speed; dillo-svn vs dillo 2.2?)

by jcid＠dillo.org

Hi there, Please report your OS/platform for dillo3 if not already listed in the compatibility page. TIA. -- Cheers Jorge.-

July 17, 2011

release preparations (was Re: [Dillo-dev] Benchmark for web page rendering speed; dillo-svn vs dillo 2.2?)

by corvid＠lavabit.com

Jorge wrote: > OK, does anybody see anything pending before packing dillo-2.2.1-rc1? > > (Yes, there're some web site updates pending, > I mean just inside the tarball). I just updated a couple of version numbers...

July 16, 2011

release preparations (was Re: [Dillo-dev] Benchmark for web page rendering speed; dillo-svn vs dillo 2.2?)

by jcid＠dillo.org

Hi, OK, does anybody see anything pending before packing dillo-2.2.1-rc1? (Yes, there're some web site updates pending, I mean just inside the tarball). -- Cheers Jorge.-

July 16, 2011

release preparations (was Re: [Dillo-dev] Benchmark for web page rendering speed; dillo-svn vs dillo 2.2?)

by corvid＠lavabit.com

Jorge wrote: > On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 11:29:15AM -0400, Benjamin Johnson wrote: > > On Fri, 15 Jul 2011 09:45:14 -0400, Jorge Arellano Cid > > <jcid(a)dillo.org> wrote: > > > > >On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 02:55:51PM -0400, Jorge Arellano Cid wrote: > > > > > > Today I made some tests, and found that newer FLTK2 versions as > > >alpha-r8800, changed the internal API, rendering some parts of > > >dillo-2.2.1 unusable. (e.g. "Open file", Close dialog, Repost > > >dialog). > > > > > > fltk-2.0.x-r7513 works fine for me. > > > > > > The simple solution is to suggest a library version range in > > >the README. e.g. > > > > > > "The FLTK2 library is statically linked into Dillo2. > > > You can get it from fltk.org. > > > The recommended version is >= r6916 and <=r7513 > > Done. > > I also added a download link since older fltk-2.0 revisions are > no longer available from fltk.org. > > BTW, the recipe to build dillo in our web site was also updated: > > http://www.dillo.org/source.html I gave download.html its own copy of FLTK2 instructions since pointing people to the beginning of source.html is confusing for now.

July 16, 2011

release preparations (was Re: [Dillo-dev] Benchmark for web page rendering speed; dillo-svn vs dillo 2.2?)

by obeythepenguin＠gmail.com

On Fri, 15 Jul 2011 22:48:25 -0400, Roger <rogerx.oss(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 08:09:57PM -0400, Benjamin Johnson wrote: >> If the distributions wish to change things, that's their prerogative; I >> mean, Debian's constitutionally incapable of leaving upstream code >> unmolested, and I'm sure anyone else who maintains an ebuild/RPM/BSD >> port >> can figure out how to patch it back to do things their own way. At >> least >> you've made an attempt. It may work, it may not, but it's still better >> than doing nothing but whine about how no distributions will ship your >> code because of a trivially avoidable technicality. > > I was thinking of providing a --use-static-fltk configure option or > something. > > This way, when things do get stable, a distro can chose to build with > external > libs. I think most projects automatically use the system library if present, and fall back on the included one otherwise. We might take that a step further: use the system library if it's present and a sane version, otherwise fall back on our own. I forgot to mention, I'm running r7725 with a couple of my own patches on Windows (and have been for some time now), without problems. I could probably put together an updated FLTK "release" for the tarball, using that + working file dialogs from an older revision, if anyone's interested. ~Benjamin

July 16, 2011

release preparations (was Re: [Dillo-dev] Benchmark for web page rendering speed; dillo-svn vs dillo 2.2?)

by rogerx.oss＠gmail.com

> On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 08:09:57PM -0400, Benjamin Johnson wrote: >On Fri, 15 Jul 2011 19:52:03 -0400, Roger <rogerx.oss(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >>> On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 11:29:15AM -0400, Benjamin Johnson wrote: >>> >>> FWIW, those dialogs have always been broken on Windows. I basically had >>> to write my own Fl_Native_File_Chooser class (although Windows' dialogs >>> are much nicer than FLTK's, anyway). >>> >>> I'd say just include a "known good" FLTK2 release in the Dillo tarball, >>> and modify the build system to use that copy instead of the system one. >>> As an added bonus, it might make Dillo more attractive to Linux >>> distributions, since they don't have to add an unreleased dependency >>> library to include an up-to-date Dillo package. >>> >>> Just a thought, >>> ~Benjamin >> >> This then defeats the purpose of a source based distro such as Gentoo. > >It's a common enough trick -- OpenOffice.org does it, Audacity does it, >basically any big-name open source project you can think of includes at >least one dependency library in the stable tarballs because the upstream >developers can't keep a stable API or functional code longer than ten >minutes. I can't argue this one. FLTK has made their bed on this. :-/ >If the distributions wish to change things, that's their prerogative; I >mean, Debian's constitutionally incapable of leaving upstream code >unmolested, and I'm sure anyone else who maintains an ebuild/RPM/BSD port >can figure out how to patch it back to do things their own way. At least >you've made an attempt. It may work, it may not, but it's still better >than doing nothing but whine about how no distributions will ship your >code because of a trivially avoidable technicality. I was thinking of providing a --use-static-fltk configure option or something. This way, when things do get stable, a distro can chose to build with external libs. >~Benjamin

July 16, 2011

release preparations (was Re: [Dillo-dev] Benchmark for web page rendering speed; dillo-svn vs dillo 2.2?)

by jcid＠dillo.org

On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 11:29:15AM -0400, Benjamin Johnson wrote: > On Fri, 15 Jul 2011 09:45:14 -0400, Jorge Arellano Cid > <jcid(a)dillo.org> wrote: > > >On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 02:55:51PM -0400, Jorge Arellano Cid wrote: > > > > Today I made some tests, and found that newer FLTK2 versions as > >alpha-r8800, changed the internal API, rendering some parts of > >dillo-2.2.1 unusable. (e.g. "Open file", Close dialog, Repost > >dialog). > > > > fltk-2.0.x-r7513 works fine for me. > > > > The simple solution is to suggest a library version range in > >the README. e.g. > > > > "The FLTK2 library is statically linked into Dillo2. > > You can get it from fltk.org. > > The recommended version is >= r6916 and <=r7513 Done. I also added a download link since older fltk-2.0 revisions are no longer available from fltk.org. BTW, the recipe to build dillo in our web site was also updated: http://www.dillo.org/source.html -- Cheers Jorge.-

July 16, 2011

Repository branch name

by jcid＠dillo.org

Hi, Is there an easy way to rename the repo name from "dillo_port1.3" to "dillo3"? -- Cheers Jorge.-

July 16, 2011

release preparations (was Re: [Dillo-dev] Benchmark for web page rendering speed; dillo-svn vs dillo 2.2?)

by obeythepenguin＠gmail.com

On Fri, 15 Jul 2011 19:52:03 -0400, Roger <rogerx.oss(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 11:29:15AM -0400, Benjamin Johnson wrote: >> >> FWIW, those dialogs have always been broken on Windows. I basically had >> to write my own Fl_Native_File_Chooser class (although Windows' dialogs >> are much nicer than FLTK's, anyway). >> >> I'd say just include a "known good" FLTK2 release in the Dillo tarball, >> and modify the build system to use that copy instead of the system one. >> As an added bonus, it might make Dillo more attractive to Linux >> distributions, since they don't have to add an unreleased dependency >> library to include an up-to-date Dillo package. >> >> Just a thought, >> ~Benjamin > > This then defeats the purpose of a source based distro such as Gentoo. It's a common enough trick -- OpenOffice.org does it, Audacity does it, basically any big-name open source project you can think of includes at least one dependency library in the stable tarballs because the upstream developers can't keep a stable API or functional code longer than ten minutes. If the distributions wish to change things, that's their prerogative; I mean, Debian's constitutionally incapable of leaving upstream code unmolested, and I'm sure anyone else who maintains an ebuild/RPM/BSD port can figure out how to patch it back to do things their own way. At least you've made an attempt. It may work, it may not, but it's still better than doing nothing but whine about how no distributions will ship your code because of a trivially avoidable technicality. ~Benjamin

July 16, 2011

release preparations (was Re: [Dillo-dev] Benchmark for web page rendering speed; dillo-svn vs dillo 2.2?)

by rogerx.oss＠gmail.com

> On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 11:29:15AM -0400, Benjamin Johnson wrote: >On Fri, 15 Jul 2011 09:45:14 -0400, Jorge Arellano Cid <jcid(a)dillo.org> >wrote: > >> On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 02:55:51PM -0400, Jorge Arellano Cid wrote: >> >> Today I made some tests, and found that newer FLTK2 versions as >> alpha-r8800, changed the internal API, rendering some parts of >> dillo-2.2.1 unusable. (e.g. "Open file", Close dialog, Repost >> dialog). >> >> fltk-2.0.x-r7513 works fine for me. >> >> The simple solution is to suggest a library version range in >> the README. e.g. >> >> "The FLTK2 library is statically linked into Dillo2. >> You can get it from fltk.org. >> The recommended version is >= r6916 and <=r7513 >> >> http://fltk.org/software.php?VERSION=2.0.x-r7513" >> >> >> Comments? >> > >FWIW, those dialogs have always been broken on Windows. I basically had >to write my own Fl_Native_File_Chooser class (although Windows' dialogs >are much nicer than FLTK's, anyway). > >I'd say just include a "known good" FLTK2 release in the Dillo tarball, >and modify the build system to use that copy instead of the system one. >As an added bonus, it might make Dillo more attractive to Linux >distributions, since they don't have to add an unreleased dependency >library to include an up-to-date Dillo package. > >Just a thought, >~Benjamin This then defeats the purpose of a source based distro such as Gentoo.

July 16, 2011